John Welsh to William M. Evarts, April 4, 1878

No. 173. Mr. Welsh to Mr. Evarts.

Sir: I have the honor to inform you of certain changes that have lately taken place in the ministry here, chiefly on account of differences of opinion in respect to the treatment of the “Eastern question.” The first to withdraw was the Earl of Carnarvon, the secretary of the colonies, whose place was filled, a few weeks since, by Sir Michael Hicks Beach, at that time secretary for Ireland.

At about the same date the privy seal, which had been held by Lord Beaconsfield, in addition to his functions as first lord of the treasury, was conferred on the Duke of Northumberland, and the secretaryship for Ireland given to the right honorable James Lowther.

The Earl of Derby, who had offered his resignation as foreign secretary at the time when Lord Carnarvon retired, finally tendered it again last week to Her Majesty, who accepted it, and transferred the seals of that department to the Marquis of Salisbury. The vacancy thus occasioned in the India office was filled by the appointment of Mr. Gathorne Hardy, who, it is understood, is to be raised to the peerage, and that in the war office made by the retirement of Mr. Hardy was supplied by Colonel Stanley, a brother of Lord Derby.

I received yesterday a note from Lord Derby announcing his resignation, which I answer immediately, expressing my sense of the promptness and courtesy which on his part had uniformly distinguished our official intercourse, and my sincere wishes for his health and happiness.

I had at the same time a letter from Lord Salisbury, stating his assumption of the seals of the foreign office, and inviting me to meet him there on the 3d instant, at three o’clock, to confer with him upon any business in regard to which I had any instructions from my government. In my reply I congratulated his lordship upon his accession to office, and stated my readiness to meet him at the time and place indicated. In the short interview which accordingly took place he received me with great cordiality.

The withdrawal of Lord Derby from the cabinet at this critical moment is regarded as a decided expression on his part adverse to its policy on the “Eastern question,” which policy has been clearly defined by a circular which Lord Salisbury addressed, immediately upon his taking office, to the British diplomatic representatives abroad.

I send by this post a copy of this document as presented to both houses of Parliament.

The relations between Great Britain and Russia are regarded as very critical. The common opinion is that they must result in a collision. Both nations are making active preparations. The Russian ambassador, with whom I talked yesterday, evinced considerable anxiety, while the members of the cabinet, with whom I also conversed, showed great firmness.

The British ministry is now a unit on this important question, and in my judgment they represent the feelings of a majority of the nation.

But these circumstances, however critical in appearance, seem to me to be only the reasonable adjuncts of a strife between parties, each one of whom is determined, if possible, to secure its own objects, but which by no means involve the certainty of a war. The British view having now been clearly defined in Lord Salisbury’s circular, Russia can remain in doubt no longer, and will probably meet it by a counter-proposal, which I confidently expect will lead to the adoption of a common ground for a permanent peace. This is manifestly for the interest of both the immediate parties, as well as for that of the rest of Europe.

It is believed by some people here that Prince Bismarck has certain purposes in his policy which so far have not been openly exhibited. One supposition is that he covets to annex Holland; another that he desires to extend the German Empire over the German speaking people of Austria. A good reason, among many, why such conjectures are improbable is, that the acquisition of either of these territories would add to the Roman Catholic population of the empire so largely as to overcome his anti-Roman Catholic policy.

Much speculation exists also as to Russia’s designs in the far East. It is suggested that these should be counteracted by the transfer of Egypt to Great Britain, which is openly advocated in some journals, and notably by Mr. Dicey, the able editor of the Observer, in this month’s number of The Nineteenth Century.

Any such intention, however, is not admitted by the British Government, possibly because there are embarrassments connected with the acquisition of Egypt which must first be privately removed.

Notwithstanding the views I have above expressed and which I have formed after such consideration as my limited term of residence here has enabled me to give to the facts of the case, it is proper for me to state that a contrary opinion is held by many persons in well informed circles, who not only believe that war is imminent, but that when it occurs it will not be confined to England and Russia alone.

I have, &c.,